Oxstar.7643

> @"Jski.6180" said: > Sadly as long as eng has kits and its elite spec can use though kits every elite spec on eng is what the kits make of it. Like having atuments for ele on utility. More of a question what do you want added to eng. > Using kits is totally voluntary. Go on the build site, see what you can find in speccs that doesn't use then. Elixir engineer should still work.

I'd like to offer the following perspective. If players can teach players what they need to know or details being derived from the wiki, is it worth the time and cost for ANet to make tutorial stuff that goes in deep detail? You have to weigh benefits against expenses in the end. Please note I am not taking sides here, nor do I purport to know what the situation is. I just want to put the question out there.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > So you want them to add HUNDREDS of new skills? I'd rather they start with the utilities that can't be used, give it more of its own identity, and THEN think about more weapons. > Well, obviously currently disabled utilities would need to be made useable as well. But if you want to compare things like that, then - sure, fixing utilities is probably easier and requires less work. It also has far less impact and is unlikely to change the current situation in any significant way. Compared to stuff like weapons it is a minor issue. > Regardless, the fact of the matter is that if every weapon was available underwater and worked the same way then it would not do anything to giver underwater combat its own identity. That is not the way to improving it. If they WERE to add every weapon then they would need to function differently. Also, not everyone dislikes it either. That the "majority" does is something I've seen trumpeted around a lot, but if you really want people to pitch in then you should probably start a poll. As it currently stands, it's a different experience from land. That should not be lost. But improved.

So you want them to add HUNDREDS of new skills? I'd rather they start with the utilities that can't be used, give it more of its own identity, and THEN think about more weapons.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > > > > > > These "insignificant things" are part of what's called polish. Something I see come up a lot lately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in your opinion, lack of polish indicates not caring? That's rather sensational considering there are more important things to deal with wouldn't you agree? > > > > > > > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or because it's not as important as other things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with what astralporing said. If you constantly say that there are more important things then a lot of little thing accumulate to become actual problems. > > > > > > > > > > Except information that is available for players to learn about the game NOT being in the game isn't a problem. Games have worked like that since the being of their existence. > > > > > > > > You shouldn't have to go open the wiki just because the game doesn't explain how things work well enough. And just because its a common thing doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. > > > > > > Are we talking about learning how to play the game or talking about details like stats, etc??? Seems to me the OP is focused on issues about the details, not learning to play. The game doesn't teach you to play it? I beg to differ. The game doesn't provide all the details about certain aspects of the game? Sure, but that information is available, just not ingame ... just like how games have worked forever with written manuals, etc ... > > > > > > If the Wiki or other sources don't explain the game well enough, that's got nothing to do with whether the information is or isn't in the game itself. > > > > Explained well enough to play it right. Playing it optimally is a matter of knowing all the details, and those you can usually learn from other players, so no, I do not think literally every single minute detail has to be explained in the game, though for some, that would certainly be nice. > > > > Anyways, you brought up the context of small details = information, I'm unsure where this context even came up, but that's what I answered to. > > To me personally, little details means many things, like corpses clipping into hills up to their feet and npc's floating in the air. To some people, things like that snaps their immersion, and immersion is good for any game that has a story to tell and an atmosphere to set. > > > > In general, details matters. > > It comes up because the OP is partially complaining he doesn't get that detailed information in the game ... and I'm arguing it shouldn't need to be there. There are a few reasons for that, but I think they are sufficiently covered already in the thread. The OP isn't actually complaining about 'game polish' like corpse clipping or floating NPC's ... I don't get why that's come up as it seems unrelated to the original complaint. Because, we were talking about details and polish. Things like corpse clipping and floating npc's falls squarely under that. As for the OP, I can't fault him for not wanting to look stuff up on the wiki. I also cannot fault the developers for not having a vast compendium with all the mechanics and details in it. Like I said - things like that are nice. I would not MIND having that myself. But, I'd rather see the time go to fixing the glitches, bugs, clipping, floating, and so on, and developing new content.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > > > > These "insignificant things" are part of what's called polish. Something I see come up a lot lately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in your opinion, lack of polish indicates not caring? That's rather sensational considering there are more important things to deal with wouldn't you agree? > > > > > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > > > > > > > > > Or because it's not as important as other things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with what astralporing said. If you constantly say that there are more important things then a lot of little thing accumulate to become actual problems. > > > > > > Except information that is available for players to learn about the game NOT being in the game isn't a problem. Games have worked like that since the being of their existence. > > > > You shouldn't have to go open the wiki just because the game doesn't explain how things work well enough. And just because its a common thing doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. > > Are we talking about learning how to play the game or talking about details like stats, etc??? Seems to me the OP is focused on issues about the details, not learning to play. The game doesn't teach you to play it? I beg to differ. The game doesn't provide all the details about certain aspects of the game? Sure, but that information is available, just not ingame ... just like how games have worked forever with written manuals, etc ... > > If the Wiki or other sources don't explain the game well enough, that's got nothing to do with whether the information is or isn't in the game itself. Explained well enough to play it right. Playing it optimally is a matter of knowing all the details, and those you can usually learn from other players, so no, I do not think literally every single minute detail has to be explained in the game, though for some, that would certainly be nice. Anyways, you brought up the context of small details = information, I'm unsure where this context even came up, but that's what I answered to. To me personally, little details means many things, like corpses clipping into hills up to their feet and npc's floating in the air. To some people, things like that snaps their immersion, and immersion is good for any game that has a story to tell and an atmosphere to set. In general, details matters.

Point being that I'm glad holosmith works so well for condition builds. I consider elite speccs being flexible enough to be viable for multiple weapons to be imortant. One dimensional speccs is not good, neither are cookie cutter builds.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > > These "insignificant things" are part of what's called polish. Something I see come up a lot lately. > > > > > > > > > > So in your opinion, lack of polish indicates not caring? That's rather sensational considering there are more important things to deal with wouldn't you agree? > > > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > > > > > Or because it's not as important as other things. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with what astralporing said. If you constantly say that there are more important things then a lot of little thing accumulate to become actual problems. > > Except information that is available for players to learn about the game NOT being in the game isn't a problem. Games have worked like that since the being of their existence. Actually, that is a common complaint across many games for many people. You shouldn't have to go open the wiki just because the game doesn't explain how things work well enough. And just because its a common thing doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing.

But having a skill on low CD that does so good burn damge lends itself extremely well to condition builds, wouldn't you say?

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > These "insignificant things" are part of what's called polish. Something I see come up a lot lately. > > > > > > So in your opinion, lack of polish indicates not caring? That's rather sensational considering there are more important things to deal with wouldn't you agree? > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > Or because it's not as important as other things. > > I agree with what astralporing said. If you constantly say that there are more important things then a lot of little thing accumulate to become actual problems.

*Idea.* Can we just go full Mechanicus and have the turrets become weapon arms that we attach to ourselves? Like running around with a robot arm on your shoulder that can fire a laser or block projectiles every now and then. They would still be turrets, but rather than them being deployed on the ground, they could be deployed on ourselves, with their overcharge intact. The detonation could result in for instance lauching your arm at the enemy for an explosion or something like that. Heck, that might even gel well with the new elite specc, if it becomes a mech specc, which seems to be what many people who voted in the other thread wants.

> @"Aplethoraof.2643" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > I'd rather they make unique things for the skills currently NOT usable underwater. > > For instance, flamthrower could use phosphor, or superheated water. And Kalla's warband is just disabled entirely under water. A biy weird imo. > > Get to work on bringing the entire utility skillset into the water first, and make it its own thing. THEN start defining underwater combat further. > > I made some edits after you posted, sorry. > > But I think we are on the same page here, in light of this elaboration? I think so. I maintain water combat needs to have things that sets it apart from land combat. That said, there can absolutely be variants and differences that smoothly transitions from land to water. Water skills for every weapon tho, hundreds of new skills are probably much too high of a goal.

I think the argument for the lock load & burn build is that you're not losing enough condition damage for it not being worth the extra defense and raw power. Also, if it wasn't mean to be good at condition damage then I don't think holo forge's 4 would deal so much burning.

I'd rather they make unique things for the skills currently NOT usable underwater. For instance, flamthrower could use phosphor, or superheated water. And Kalla's warband is just disabled entirely under water. A biy weird imo. Get to work on bringing the entire utility skillset into the water first, and make it its own thing. THEN start defining underwater combat further.

> @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > But why would that stop a new elite spec getting a ranged weapon? (Unless of course that's not what you meant by bringing it up) That's not what I mean, no. I was only trying to say that if you count grenades as a weapon, which again, it is, in everything but technically speaking, then hammer is not the best ranged weapon. The new elite specc getting a ranged weapon is okay with me. After all, turns out that at least for condition builds, hopping your blowtorch up to 20k burn damage beats the tar out of sword, plus the poison and confusion you also get out of it. Elite speccs working just as well without their poster weapon as with is important.